- From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:23:41 +0200
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: "Philip Ackermann" <philip.ackermann@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "ERT WG" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear Shadi, Philip we have used the earl:Assertion for our tool and from our point of view we think that there is no need for further modifications regards kostas > Hi Philip, > > I'm happy to re-discuss this design decision with the group. > > The reason why earl:mode has the domain of earl:Assertion is because the > test mode is not necessarily a property of the TestCriterion. For > example, the same test could be carried out manually (by a human) or > with the support of a tool. Proper alt-text is a good example. > > Actually, I think the proposal you put forth may make it harder to reuse > TestCriterion descriptions because you fix the mode they are carried out > in. You would potentially end up with several duplicates for each > possible mode that the test can be carried out in. > > What do other people think? > > Best, > Shadi > > > On 14.12.2011 11:38, Philip Ackermann wrote: >> Dear group, >> >> Carlos and I would like to propose to change the domain for earl:mode >> from earl:Assertion to earl:TestCriterion. >> >> The reason for this is that we are currently implementing an ontology in >> which we are reusing earl:TestCriterion and we would like to have some >> kind of property expressing the mode of each test. >> >> Currently only earl:Assertion is in the domain of earl:mode. We could >> either >> 1.) add earl:TestCriterion to that domain or >> 2.) replace earl:Assertion by earl:TestCriterion in that domain >> >> We would prefer the second solution, since earl:Assertion is connected >> to the earl:TestCriterion anyway by the property earl:test, so >> retrieving the mode for a given assertion would still be possible. >> >> Sorry for that late request, maybe we can discuss this in today's phone >> conference. >> >> thanks and regards, >> Philip >> > > -- > Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ > Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office > Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) > Research and Development Working Group (RDWG) >
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 14:24:26 UTC